Don't bother; you will.

A little disappointed that this thread 'died', but do believe 'lessons' have been learned. This is an educational forum, there will be differences of opinion...it is frustrating to have an object posted, questions asked ...that go unanswered. I feel that the 'poster' whom wants further information or comments ...should reply to queries, or explain why they believe certain things are fact. This is how we learn and grow....humour...a little friendly 'banter', makes education fun, but I can understand how this can be misconcieved by some. Please, lets not refrain from the occasional 'banter'.....afterall ....all work and no play made Jack a dull boy ;)

Best Regards David

Hi David,
You mean “dead” as if somebody “killed” it ?
No doubt Cesare found that our remarks trespassed the "friendly banter" limit and felt somehow ridicularized with the contents of some posts.
Maybe a certain extent of humor is o.k. if exchanged between us, "forum veterans", but remember that newcomers may not be ready for that.
On the other hand, Cornelis answered most of the questions posed by you guys; so we can’t say that the thread subject had such a sterile ending.
We will certainly have Cesare coming back with new threads and more interesting material.
Does the saying “Life goes on” makes any sense in here?
Yours humbly :cool:

'Nando,
I'm pleased to hear that Cesare will continue posting :) I would be interested in other items he has to 'post'.

All the best
David

Hi,

I found that this open case also has been opened at the armsandarmsforum, there they found out that this particular Hat has been published in Armi e Armature Italiane, Aldo Mario Aroldi (Fig. 65).

Wow, Cornelis, great find! It's always amazing when another example of a questioned item turns up in a noted collection. Good show! I had followed this thread for awhile and its nice to see some closure.

Perfect, Cornelis,

I cannot believe that I overlooked that fine sample.

Once more posted here for easy comparison - nothing I guess can be brought forward against Cesare's helmet now (not disregarding the question how both breathing and seeing might have possibly worked with such a device ...)

Thank you and best,
Michael

Hi,

I overlooked it myself too :o Iam much more at home in medieval swords.
the more literature you have the less you can find back.

luckily people with greater knowledge than me in armor found the publication.

for me it was clear that it is a helmet, but unfortunately I could not date it, I still can not. (around 1300 is probably right)


best,

I share your dating of around 1300!

Thanks for the additional scans.

Best,
Michael

Hmm, i don't understand why everyone is so exicted about the new pictures... :shrug:

The picture cornelistomp posted is not that of another specimen but (as he wrote himself) of the very same helmet before restoration.

Best Regards,
Thilo

That says it all, Thilo,

I seemingly cannot read properly. :shrug:

So back to square one: Cesare's helmet to me remains as doubtful as always.

Thanks for enlightening us,
and best,
Michael

Hi,

the fact that this helmet is published by one of the most leading specialists of Italian armor makes the credibility of the hypothesis that this helmet is a bucket or other household item, suggested by some forum members, a lot less credible.

However, experts also make mistakes but that is probably not the case here.
Iam sorry and realize it's hard to abandon a hypothesis, how convincing the evidence is.


kind regards,

Maybe i should add that i don't belong to the group of people that think that this item is a household item or a bucket. There were much better designs for such items at that time.
In my opinion this is -- how impractical it may seem in its current condition -- clearly a helmet.

My point was that the photos you posted are of the same helmet and therefore don't provide more information about date and origin that Cesare already knows.

kind regards,
Thilo

Hi Thilo,
sorry I misunderstood.
herewith a picture of another kettle hat from Museum of Malbork, I took the picture from the armsandarmourforum link.

Best,

So ...
Let us assume for a moment that, these these things were battle accoutrements purposely made for assaulting (climbing) fortification walls; to protect you from whatever is dropped from above ... stones, boiling oil and the like.
The eye slits would be dispensable; you wouldn't wish to look up while climbing your ladder and risk having your eyes burnt by the oil ... or perforated by an arrow.
A wider brim would make too heavy; the shoulders would be protected by its own reinforcement :shrug:

Hi 'Nando,
first of all....Happy New Year to you all.

Interesting point, my concern with the helmet is the 'eye level' (as already stated) but, if your assumption is correct, perhaps the helmet had much more and thicker padding (covering the crown) this would raise the level of the 'brim' in relation to the eyes ...... and increase the protection from falling / downward thrown objects :shrug:

All the best
David

OK, 'Nando,

This is an argument I cannot confound. Also, David's thought of an unusually thick padding makes sense. :)

Best,
Michael

Well, if this is a helmet to specificaly protect you from falling objects, thick padding or, better say, thick stuffing, is an inherent detail.

Duly noted, 'Nando, ;)

One argument consequently leads to the other.

Best,
MIchael

Not ALL helmets have to have eye holes...
 

:p ;) :D
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Komus%C5%8D

Just kidding, I think the heavily padded seige helmet theory fits best.

OK folks, i really tried to resist but... ;)
i found this while browsing through Thalhofer:

Fantaaaaastic :cool: